Island Kryptonia was kind of stupid. I thought Routh was solid though.

I thought it wasn't really a bad idea. It just could've been solidified a bit more. More story behind it.

Aaaand...

So silly to be fighting over an opinion... No one is right or wrong. Some people like it, some don't. Disagreeing is fine, DogofKrypton and Dr., but really, all I see is hostility and people to try and get an opinion across which neither one will accept or even 'listen' to... Lighten up. One of you gets his way with MoS, the other one (like me) just isn't as lucky.

__________________Proud Owner of the Gambit's Royal Flush Fanlisting - 08/12/2013: NOW ALL NEW AND IMPROVED!
Proud Member of Gambit's Royal Flush

I just love that you want to keep going in circles about this. You seem to believe you "won", when you just keep making yourself look foolish.

I was correcting a factual error that you made. (Various subjective points have been argued and there has been disagreement. But noone stated that SR was more profitable than Thor - and the thread record proves this.)

Characterizing a factual correction as “going in circles” is a dishonest move and has a stifling effect on open debate. If allowed to stand, it would mean that any legitimate rebuttal could be forestalled by simple rhetorical assertion (absent reason or evidence) - “you’re wrong because I say so.” This is called argumentum ad lapidem or “argument by dismissal” - a recognized logical fallacy.

I thought it wasn't really a bad idea. It just could've been solidified a bit more. More story behind it.

Aaaand...

So silly to be fighting over an opinion... No one is right or wrong. Some people like it, some don't. Disagreeing is fine, DogofKrypton and Dr., but really, all I see is hostility and people to try and get an opinion across which neither one will accept or even 'listen' to... Lighten up. One of you gets his way with MoS, the other one (like me) just isn't as lucky.

No, it wasn't a horrible idea, but I thought it could have been better executed.. I didn't honestly feel Metropolis was really in danger. Thought they could have shown that more than it did.

Then when he practically sacrifices himself by exposing himself to and lifting Island Kryptonia off earth, it could have had more of an impact. Oh well, I've seen better movies, but I've seen way worse too.

__________________"Well, I guess the laws of physics cease to exist on top of your stove!"

I was correcting a factual error that you made. (Various subjective points have been argued and there has been disagreement. But noone stated that SR was more profitable than Thor - and the thread record proves this.)

Characterizing a factual correction as “going in circles” is a dishonest move and has a stifling effect on open debate. If allowed to stand, it would mean that any legitimate rebuttal could be forestalled by simple rhetorical assertion (absent reason or evidence) - “you’re wrong because I say so.” This is called argumentum ad lapidem or “argument by dismissal” - a recognized logical fallacy.

And I'll leave it at that.

If you want to continue trolling this thread, that I have tried steering back on topic, feel free.

If you want to continue trolling this thread, that I have tried steering back on topic, feel free.

As far as the original thread topic is concerned (a two part, 30min Youtube video defending SR against its critics)… As I said, I thought the production was technically impressive. But it spent too much time summarizing the story and it was too “defensive.” Better to explain why the movie is good rather than rebut criticisms (a strategy that’s more conducive to interactive discussion - not a formal presentation).

As far as the original thread topic is concerned (a two part, 30min Youtube video defending SR against its critics)… As I said, I thought the production was technically impressive. But it spent too much time summarizing the story and it was too “defensive.” Better to explain why the movie is good rather than rebut criticisms (a strategy that’s more conducive to interactive discussion - not a formal presentation).

What did you think of the video(s)?

I think anyone who feels the need to spend such a mind-numbingly long time "defending" a film is very insecure about how they TRULY feel about it. It's almost as if he is trying to convince HIMSELF that he "likes" it.

Judging by his reactions to the comments below, I have a feeling I'm not too far off-base......

I think anyone who feels the need to spend such a mind-numbingly long time "defending" a film is very insecure about how they TRULY feel about it. It's almost as if he is trying to convince HIMSELF that he "likes" it.

Judging by his reactions to the comments below, I have a feeling I'm not too far off-base......

Obviously, folks can have different, personal, subjective opinions. That’s perfectly fine. However, this only tells you the “what” - not the “why” (“I like vanilla, you like chocolate." End of conversation.) But opinions and reviews that come with arguments and analyses are usually more interesting because they tend to be less subjective. E.g., “the movie was bad (or good) because of x, y and z.” Thus, x, y and z are specific claims. And specific claims can be debated.

More explicitly, I might say that I didn’t like a movie because of a big “plot hole” in the second act. But it’s fair game for someone else to point out that I missed a crucial bit of dialogue, which resolves the alleged plot hole. So at this stage, we’re no longer debating subjective opinion (a somewhat fruitless exercise), we’re talking about facts within the text - does that dialogue actually exist, does it fix the plot hole?

Of course, I’m still allowed to dislike the movie. But at least one of my stated reasons for disliking it has been called into question. I either need to come up with a better explanation or I must be satisfied with being unable to articulate my general, negative impressions (which probably means that I wouldn’t show up on too many message boards because I don’t have much to say beyond a or ).

So back to the fellow in the video… I think he was attempting to rebut some of those “objective” criticisms of SR - the ones that he thinks are misrepresentations of the text. I appreciate his effort. When I’ve discussed the movie, I’ve come across critics who either deliberately misreport a scene/detail or (more innocently) misremember it. In any case, it’s certainly fair to contest these errors in the give-and-take fashion of internet discussion.

For that matter, check out the current state of the various TDKR threads. The different camps are offering different opinions, they do their best to present sound arguments in support of those opinions - and they spend a good deal of time and effort in the process. I don’t think this means they are particularly insecure in their positions; they’re just passionate about the movie (one way or another) and they enjoy the discussion. (Or check out a politics or religion thread; the debates there are endless.)

That said… a more formal video presentation has a different tone than an interactive conversation. And I think the SR video author would have been better off delivering a straightforward positive review rather than a “reactionary” defense. He seemed more interested in having a debate; and a video is (obviously) not the ideal medium for that.

I think anyone who feels the need to spend such a mind-numbingly long time "defending" a film is very insecure about how they TRULY feel about it. It's almost as if he is trying to convince HIMSELF that he "likes" it.

Judging by his reactions to the comments below, I have a feeling I'm not too far off-base......

What annoys me the most is that apparently you think that people cannot like Superman Returns because you don't like it. Which seems to me as if your opinion of the film is the only thing that counts. I liked it a lot, although I think there were definitely some things that could've been added or removed. I could go on and on about why I like it, but still it's my opinion, so I'm right in how I feel. Saying someone is insecure about how he/she feel about it, because they try to defend his/her views about it, really rubs me the wrong way.

Let's try to turn it around: You like a film so much, you think it's incredible and you have your reasons for having this opinion. You try to defend your reasons for liking it, because some people disagree with you and voice their opinions. Then someone goes about how bad it was and how it's not possible for you to like it, because of reasons this, that and that. And he/she says you're just insecure and you don't want to show him/her that you, deep within, don't want to admit you really didn't like it. Would you like it? Wouldn't you be annoyed?

Because that's what you're doing. You're trying to force your opinion on other people, without even considering that they might not agree with you. And that really p**ses me off...

__________________Proud Owner of the Gambit's Royal Flush Fanlisting - 08/12/2013: NOW ALL NEW AND IMPROVED!
Proud Member of Gambit's Royal Flush

What annoys me the most is that apparently you think that people cannot like Superman Returns because you don't like it. Which seems to me as if your opinion of the film is the only thing that counts. I liked it a lot, although I think there were definitely some things that could've been added or removed. I could go on and on about why I like it, but still it's my opinion, so I'm right in how I feel. Saying someone is insecure about how he/she feel about it, because they try to defend his/her views about it, really rubs me the wrong way.

What annoys you means less than nothing to me.

All you did was prove my point.

Quote:

Let's try to turn it around: You like a film so much, you think it's incredible and you have your reasons for having this opinion. You try to defend your reasons for liking it, because some people disagree with you and voice their opinions. Then someone goes about how bad it was and how it's not possible for you to like it, because of reasons this, that and that. And he/she says you're just insecure and you don't want to show him/her that you, deep within, don't want to admit you really didn't like it. Would you like it? Wouldn't you be annoyed?

Nope. I don't feel the need to "defend" ANYTHING I like. I like it. Period. If you don't, who cares?

Your constant whining and "attacks" against people who don't like the film show that you ARE insecure about it, and are unwilling to admit the numerous flaws and plot-holes within. AT MOST you will give a "I know there are flaws but I choose to ignore them and pretend it is a flawless film".

Which is NOT acknowledging the flaws, and are just giving a vague, back-handed compliment to the film.

Quote:

Because that's what you're doing. You're trying to force your opinion on other people, without even considering that they might not agree with you.

See, if I had a victim complex like you, I'd be saying that you are trying to TELL ME what I'm doing. That you can't handle a contrary opinion, so you are attacking the person instead of the message. Like a troll.

Obviously, folks can have different, personal, subjective opinions. That’s perfectly fine. However, this only tells you the “what” - not the “why” (“I like vanilla, you like chocolate." End of conversation.) But opinions and reviews that come with arguments and analyses are usually more interesting because they tend to be less subjective. E.g., “the movie was bad (or good) because of x, y and z.” Thus, x, y and z are specific claims. And specific claims can be debated.

More explicitly, I might say that I didn’t like a movie because of a big “plot hole” in the second act. But it’s fair game for someone else to point out that I missed a crucial bit of dialogue, which resolves the alleged plot hole. So at this stage, we’re no longer debating subjective opinion (a somewhat fruitless exercise), we’re talking about facts within the text - does that dialogue actually exist, does it fix the plot hole?

Of course, I’m still allowed to dislike the movie. But at least one of my stated reasons for disliking it has been called into question. I either need to come up with a better explanation or I must be satisfied with being unable to articulate my general, negative impressions (which probably means that I wouldn’t show up on too many message boards because I don’t have much to say beyond a or ).

So back to the fellow in the video… I think he was attempting to rebut some of those “objective” criticisms of SR - the ones that he thinks are misrepresentations of the text. I appreciate his effort. When I’ve discussed the movie, I’ve come across critics who either deliberately misreport a scene/detail or (more innocently) misremember it. In any case, it’s certainly fair to contest these errors in the give-and-take fashion of internet discussion.

For that matter, check out the current state of the various TDKR threads. The different camps are offering different opinions, they do their best to present sound arguments in support of those opinions - and they spend a good deal of time and effort in the process. I don’t think this means they are particularly insecure in their positions; they’re just passionate about the movie (one way or another) and they enjoy the discussion. (Or check out a politics or religion thread; the debates there are endless.)

That said… a more formal video presentation has a different tone than an interactive conversation. And I think the SR video author would have been better off delivering a straightforward positive review rather than a “reactionary” defense. He seemed more interested in having a debate; and a video is (obviously) not the ideal medium for that.

Check the post right below yours to see what I mean about people being insecure of just how they TRULY feel about this film.

We are discussing a video some guy decided to post "defending" SR. And what does the person below you do when it receives criticism? They take it as a "personal insult", and go after the person who made the crits. What balanced person, who is secure in their "fandom", does this? They didn't rebut my statements. They didn't try and see the opposite point of view. All they did was whine and make thinly-veiled insults.

I've seen this on various boards in this forum, usually about this very topic. It's truly confusing, and a bit sad, that people just can't handle that a lot of people didn't like SR, or Routh.

Here's the thing....does anyone who likes SR feel it was a good Superman film? If you do, why do you feel this film is truly representative of Superman? Why does this film stand out from other incarnations?

My issue with EVERYONE who likes this film is you cannot seem to name one reason why you like it. You can only defend it. And you can only name why you like in response to a defense against everyone who does not like it.

Not only do I appreciate the fact that it's a unique cinematic experiment in that it tries to recapture and replicate the innocence of the Richard Donner Superman films, but I find myself really emotional during the film too. I like that they focused on the fact that Superman feels like an outsider. That's something I've hardly seen done in Superman adaptations, and they REALLY played with it. I also really enjoy how they treat Superman, there are several moments where they just show: "Hey look, he's Superman and that's awesome". Such as the bank-robbery (easily my favourite scene), the inability for the hospital workers to help him, etc.

Essentially, I really enjoy how wonderfully similar in a good way it was to the Donner film, I like that they really delve into how isolated Superman is as the last of his kind, and I also really get emotional at certain parts (other than the isolation bits, which get me, too) such as Superman's thematic *****-slap "You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but everday I hear people crying for one" (which I REALLY love because despite recapturing the innocence of the Donner films, it also approached some of the more depressing **** that Superman has to deal with day to day) and that bit where he loses his powers on Krypto-Island and gets his ass kicked: PURELY for the line he utters muffled which absolutely destroyed me after I checked the subtitles ("I'm still Superman!").

I hate Kate Bosworth and I hate the Super-Bastard, but other than that I absolutely love the movie.

Here's the thing....does anyone who likes SR feel it was a good Superman film?

I think it was a good film and a good/interesting Superman story. (Some make a distinction between the two. Some concede that the interpersonal plot elements in SR would be fine for a different character - but that they’re inappropriate for Superman. A similar objection is sometimes leveled against Nolan - he made three good films but he didn’t quite “get” Batman. Likewise, Ang Lee’s Hulk. It’s an intriguing question: can a good movie - which happens to feature a superhero protagonist - still be a bad “superhero movie”?)

Quote:

If you do, why do you feel this film is truly representative of Superman?

Hmm. That’s a tall order. It might even be impossible. Different fans enjoy different types of Superman stories. For me, a Supes adventure that takes place on an exotic planet with weird aliens is missing many of the necessary elements (Metropolis, the DP, Lois, etc.). For me, such stories are not evocative of the essential Superman. But some like them just fine. Other fans extend much praise to particular “elseworld” tales (like RedSon). Let’s stipulate that these are good. And if they are, not being “truly representative” becomes a bit of a red herring. In Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (which has a couple of features that are echoed in SR), Alan Moore opened his “elseworlds” tale with: “This is an imaginary story. Aren’t they all?” In other words, every writer is entitled to artistic license; and every reader should acknowledge this and judge the work on its own terms.

Burton had a particular interpretation of Batman… which was different than Schumacher’s… which was different than Nolan’s. When the franchise is eventually rebooted, there’ll be yet another interpretation. And to the extent that fans have different tastes, none of them can be called definitive; they’re just variations on a common theme.

And I look at SR in a similar light - a personal interpretation of Superman that happens to emphasize particular aspects (which, in my view, have always existed as subtext in the mythos).

Quote:

Why does this film stand out from other incarnations?

You mean the other four films? SIII and SIV don’t warrant discussion. I sorta like STM (especially the “Krypton” and “Smallville” acts). But the Luthor stuff is painful and Supes’ character arc is almost zero. SII is more character-driven; but the rest of the movie is a mess. I suppose you could make the case that STM and SII - taken as one film - have the broad-brush strokes of a basically satisfying plot (though I know many who loathed Supes’ voluntary “retirement” in order to be with Lois). But in terms of individual, stand-alone films with a coherent theme, I place SR well ahead of its predecessors. Is that setting the bar too low? I dunno. I certainly hope MOS is superior to SR. And if it is, I’ll gladly reorder my list of the best Superman movies ever made.

Quote:

My issue with EVERYONE who likes this film is you cannot seem to name one reason why you like it. You can only defend it. And you can only name why you like in response to a defense against everyone who does not like it.

The question that has long interested me about the character: what does Superman want? We all know about the “super” part - his life’s work. Hearing a cry for help, there’s a phone booth, a shirt-rip and a dutiful and selfless rescue. That goes without saying. But what about the “man” part, the human part - his personal desires? Surely those exist. What are they? Or what might they be? SR offers one interpretation - that Supes longs for a connection to “home” and family. Is this the only possible interpretation? No; but it strikes me as an entirely valid one - a reaction to feelings of alienation that (realistically and implicitly) would actually affect the character. So for me, SR was satisfying on that level - as an interpretation, an “elseworlds” story.

I wrote about this in an essay (which is still posted here). It’s composed in a somewhat “academic” style (for reasons which I won’t go into). But if you get through it, you’ll notice that it contains no “defense” or “reaction” against the critics. It’s a straight-up (positive) analysis.

Here's the thing....does anyone who likes SR feel it was a good Superman film? If you do, why do you feel this film is truly representative of Superman?

If anyone can tell me what really a true presentation of Superman is, one that goes for every fan, then I would be able to provide you with an answer that is satisfying for everyone. But for me, I would say yes, I think it's a good Superman film, and is partly a true representation of Superman on the emotional aspect. I feel that comics generally don't do much justice to the emotional aspect of most characters. And I've read my share of comics, both Superman and non-Superman. On an emotional level, to me, it's a very good film. You can feel Superman's pain, and his love for a world that essentially doesn't belong to him.... if that makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Why does this film stand out from other incarnations?

I feel it's not a matter of this film standing out from other films, tv-shows, etc, because I think you can't compare. All of them are so very different from eachother that I just can't compare them. I can't give you an answer to that. I just know I liked the film very much because of the reasons mentioned above and below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

My issue with EVERYONE who likes this film is you cannot seem to name one reason why you like it. You can only defend it. And you can only name why you like in response to a defense against everyone who does not like it.

I like Superman Returns because (to me) it shows an emotional Superman. He comes back from a long period of absence, wherein he has tried to find others of his race. This alone showed he feels alone in a world he doesn't really belong to. After he comes back to earth he finds the world, but especially the woman he loves has moved on. Once again he's alone and it makes him realise he's really alone. But still he gives it all to save the people he loves, who have moved on without him, and the ones who see him as a semi-god, because that is that ultimate goodness in him. And I think it's sweet that, in the end, he finds out he's not alone after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

What Makes Superman Returns a Good Superman Film?

I think Superman Returns makes a good Superman film, because it triggers other issues than just a world that is under threat from a madman. Sure, that's Superman's 'job', to save people. To me Superman is more than this muscled superhero that fights for truth and justice. He is a man with feelings, real emotions, and though he is not human, he was raised as one, with all the morals and values, doubts and conflictions that the 'normal' people have to face.

Maybe it's because I'm of the female gender. I like a bit of action and a bit of drama. Superman Returns moved me, showed me the person beneath both guises of Clark Kent and Superman.

__________________Proud Owner of the Gambit's Royal Flush Fanlisting - 08/12/2013: NOW ALL NEW AND IMPROVED!
Proud Member of Gambit's Royal Flush

Okay so hears the deal everyone who liked SR is more than willing to say that its a movie with problems. I cant believe the people who don't like it cant find anything they like about it. Through the people who do like it a bone and say something positive.